5G: cost or saving?

Introduction to IS-Wireless

2

● COMPANY FACTS

● Ownership: Privately held

● Proud SME Member of:

● Location: Piaseczno (near Warsaw), Poland

● Industry

● Wireless communications

● Product groups:

● NFV-compatible & standard-compliant RAN protocols ready for 5G

● Experimentation solutions supporting research and education on 4G and 5G

● Active EU R&D projects participant

www.is-wireless.com

Thesis

3

Cellular infrastructure for the coming mobile revolution

can lower the cost of network deployments.

This is especially important in the light of coming 5G deployments.

Trends

Telecom operator’s perspective

Need to lower the cost of GB

5

5G technical KPIs

6

5G requires completely redefined RAN infrastructure.

Transition to 5G will be far more disruptive than introduction of GSM.

Higher system capacity:

1000 x capacity / km2Energy savings and

cost reductions

Reduced latency:

< 1 ms

Higher data rate:

100 x typical data rate

(even for high mobility)

Massive device connectivity:

100 x connected devices

(even in crowded areas)

5GTARGETS

4G base station software current situation and problems

7

Base station software

Why not to address the new challenges

and solve current problems at the same time?

eNB scheduler

3GPP stack

• locked to particular hardware

(chipset)

• underperforming and overpriced

• does not use radio resource

efficiently

• poorly scalable (lack of virtualized

components)Physical resources

„bare metal” SoC, DSP,

FPGA, GPP

LTE eNB

Network architecture transition

8

EPC cabinet

base station cabinet base station tower

Networks of the past Networks of the future

MEC server (COTS) including:

vRAN, vEPC, possibly applications

Share among many base stations

Small cell base stations: RRH, DAS, femto, pico

databases

Indoor coverage requires special attention

9

Signal from macro cells doesn’t penetrate roofs/walls/windows well

Small Cell Forum forecasts that in 2025 67% of new deployments and

upgrades will be indoor non-residential, 33% outdoor

Small Cell Forum “Small cells market status report”,

December 2018, doc 050.10.03

Without an in-building solution

With an in-building solution

Network architectures

Base station elements - few words on terminology

● Radio Frequency part

● Antenna

● Remote Radio Head (RRH)

● Baseband part

● L1 (PHY)

● L2 (MAC, RLC, PDCP)

● L3 (RRC)

● Active elements

● RRH

● Baseband

● Passive elements

● Repeaters, etcRF L1

L2 L3

RF L1 L2 L3

RRH

Baseband

RF L1

Internet

Macro cell

Small cell

SD-RAN

[C-RAN/

vRAN/]

RF L1 L2 L3

RF

Macro cell

with DAS

Macro cells | DAS | Small cells | SD-RAN

12

Macro cell DAS Small cells SD-RAN

Enhanced indoor

coverage, expensive

installation

Enhanced

capacity

Further enhanced

better capacity,

lower cost

Poor indoor

coverage

Active elements

Passive elements

Ethernet installation

Backhaul (i.e. Fiber Optic)

Virtualized

gNB

Software-Defined RAN

13

Virtualized

gNB

VNF

Composition

Framework

(EM+NM)

RRM

Virtualized

gNB

Base stations, RRHs

MEC

Cloud

Physical resources

„bare metal”

Virtual resources

SW

Decoupled

HW

Fully software-defined and NFV-compatible RAN functionality ready to be deployed on physical

(base station) or virtual (MEC servers) resources.

In line with concepts of Cloud RAN/vRAN

SD-RAN - highlights

14

● Light RF and L1 at the small cell site

● Very low power radiated

● Light, low-cost modules close to the user

● Flexible placement of access points

● L2/L3, Core – virtualized and centralized e.g. located in a basement

● Use COTS, GPP hardware

● Scalable baseband - easy addition of new cell

● Functionality defined in software

● Centralized Radio Resource Management increases spectral efficiency

SD-RAN

Benefits of SD-RAN

15

High performance/resource utilization

•On radio interface: improved spectral efficiency, improved interference handling

•On baseband: multiplexing gain, resources sharing for several cells

Low cost

•Savings on infrastructure: RF, usage of COST hardware for the infrastructure

•Lower site setup and maintenance cost

•Energy savings

High flexibility

•Radio technology neutrality

•New generations of technology or features introduced as software updates

High scalability

•Straightforward addition of new cells

•Scalable expansion of baseband resources

SD-RAN

Quantifying costs

RAN deployment: CAPEX and OPEX structure

17

C/O Group Cost category Macro DAS Small Cells SD-RAN

CAPEX Infrastructure ● Site Acquisition $$$$ $$ $$ $

● Building Permit $$$$ $$ $$ $

● Infrastructure and Civil Works $$$$... $$ $ $

Antenna Systems

(and cabling)

● Antennas $$$$ $$ - -

● Cables / Fronthaul* $$$ $$$$ - $

Power Supply ● Power Supply and Battery $$$$ $$ $$ $

Base Station ● RRH $$$$ $$ $$ $

● Baseband $$$$ $$ $$ -

● Baseband/Server - - - $$$$

Backhaul ● Backhaul - Fiber Optic $$$$ $$ $$$ $$

OPEX --- ● Rental $$$$ $$$ $$ $

● Energy $$$$ $$ $$$ $

● Maintenance $$$$ $$ $ $

* Cables (ANT-RRH) / Fronthaul (RRH-Baseband)

per site per cell per cell per cell

Main assumptions

18

● Deployment scenario: Indoor

● Area: 4 km2, Dense Urban

● Population: 10.000, Market share 50%, 500 MB/user@BH

● Options:

● Option 1: to deliver network coverage

● Option 2: to deliver network coverage and capacity

● One frequency band is used: 2.6 GHz

● Bandwidth: 20 MHz, FDD

● MIMO: 2x2

● Sectorization: 3-sectors for Macro sites, Omni for remaining solutions

● Building penetration loss: 20 dB for Macro sites, 3dB for remaining solutions

Deployment options: indoor

19

Macro cell DAS Small cells SD-RAN

Active elements

Passive elements

Ethernet installation

Backhaul (i.e. Fiber Optic)

Option 1: results for the same coverage

20

● Quantity/Capacity/TCO

Summary:● Coverage: the same (4 km2)● Capacity: 1,5-1,9x more capacity in SD-RAN● TCO costs: 1,3-1,7x more expensive vs. SD-RAN● Costs efficiency: 1,9-2,7x lower costs per Mbps

1,7x

1,4x1,3x

1,5x1,9x

Option 1: Details

21

● CAPEX / OPEX split

Comparison to SD-RAN:● Macro more expensive mainly due to infrastructure and rental (such density probably not

possible)● DAS more expensive mainly due to antenna systems and Base Stations costs and rental● Small Cells more expensive mainly due to heavier Base Station equipment and rental

Option 2: results for the same coverage & capacity

22

● Quantity/Capacity/TCO

Summary:● Coverage: the same (4 km2)● Capacity: the same (5,4 Gbps)● TCO costs: 1,9-2,7x more expensive vs. SD-RAN● Costs efficiency: 1,9-2,7x lower costs per Mbps

2,7x

1,9x

2,5x

Option 2: Details

23

● CAPEX / OPEX split

Comparison to SD-RAN:● Macro more expensive mainly due to infrastructure and rental (such density not feasible)● DAS more expensive mainly due to antenna systems and Base Stations costs and rental● Small Cells more expensive mainly due to heavier Base Station equipment and rental

Conclusions

24

SD-RAN offers c.a. 2x higher capacity for the same coverage comparing to macro cell

SD-RAN offers c.a. 3x lower cost per Mbps comparing to macro cell

SD-RAN enables scalable network capacity expansion, where macro base stations may not keep up with capacity need increase

SD-RAN

Contact details

Oceń Wykład w Aplikacji eventory

5G: cost or saving?

IS-Wireless: SD-RAN Product Manager / Chief Operating Officer

Aleksandra Chećko / Robert Cieloch

Q&A

Backup

Deployment options: indoor coverage and capacity improvement

29

Deployment options: Indoor + Outdoor coverage and capacity

30

Additional Conclusions

31

● Further SD-RAN benefits:

● Higher granularity of coverage/capacity (higher flexibility/scalability)

● Even higher cost savings for higher frequencies, e.g. for mmWaves (high network density)

● Could be implemented in multi-tenancy mode (to serve different MNOs in the area)

● Use cases

● Can extend coverage/capacity delivered by MNOs macro solutions

● Can be used to build private/enterprise networks